Edit Avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
  • Maximum size: 1MB
Drag image to reposition
Save
Cancel

thelastlongbow

Nazaleaf
Member Since
Jan 13, 2019
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forum Posts
145
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum Threads
0
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 22, 2020 at 12:03
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Danny12357</b></div><div>It's not really semantics though. Over half of the teams in the league will be carrying a 22 or fewer player roster. Approximately 91% of all of the leagues cap space is currently in use, and there are some truly awful teams that don't have much cap space.

Arizona, San Jose, Anaheim, and Minnesota are weak teams with little to no cap space.

Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal will all have to ice a 21 or 22 player roster to be cap compliant, and none of those teams are better than Toronto with Montreal and Calgary having some very ugly contracts that make their future cap situation not look nearly as clear.

There are some bad teams that won't be spending to the cap like Ottawa, Florida, LA, and New Jersey, but those teams are essentially rebuilding and waiting out some awful contracts (well Florida is just a tire fire).

There are definitely teams with a far better cap scenario than Toronto, but there cap situation is better than at least half of the league, they don't have any terrible contracts, and they have a competitive roster. It's hard to see a rationale where you think their cap situation creates a barrier to being competitive.

Space alone doesn't make a team have a well managed cap as it often means teams just don't have assets. The point is, if you can look at every player on the roster and think "I would rather have that player than just have the cap space they use up" that team doesn't really have a cap problem.</div></div>

This is such a well thought out comment. Bravo, sir!
Forum: NHL TradesOct 10, 2020 at 4:37